Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Xilr
  • Member Since Nov 7th, 2008

Are you Xilr? If So, Login Here.

WoW34 Comments
Massively66 Comments

Recent Comments:

The Soapbox: Credible currency {Massively}

Jan 24th 2012 4:29PM @Plastic

Wow man, those first two sentences say it all. So many times I hear people (losing an arguement) fall back on "its just a game" and other useless comments, but you've just penned the ultimate shutdown to those type of comments.

It does indeed suck when your home becomes uninhabitable.....


The Soapbox: Credible currency {Massively}

Jan 24th 2012 3:27PM Yep Im thinking Star Trek Online too. I also loved the subscription game and dislike the new free to pay model.

I remember an interview where they said ships will remain account unlocks. I remember another interview where they were talking about ship prices, and $25 being "about" the highest they intended to go.

Enter the Jem'Hadar attack ship. Way overpowered, some people spent over $100 to get one. Single character, one use ship. They "sidestepped" all their promises by saying "Ya but this ship is tradeable!" Like anyone playing legitimately will have something to "trade" for a ship that costs multiple hundreds of dollars to acquire.

And I forgot how many times we heard promises on more feature episodes....

Like the first guy said, dont believe anything until it actually happens. I'll add this though, unless it sounds expensive and damaging to the player, then believe it, because that is exactly how F2P works.

Raph Koster talks about free-to-play models and whales {Massively}

Jan 12th 2012 9:14AM @bobfish

So all those people who try out the game are considered "the majority" that dont pay a cent. That isnt a free game, its a free trial. If I cant play competitively for $15 a month or less I don't consider it a game and most F2P games you can NOT compete in the top end without spending a whole lot more.

IRL if your rich you get all kinds of great benefits in life. Thats just how life is. But video games dont "NEED" to reflect life. In a video game where the developer controls the rules the playing field *can* be fair and equal for all (like it is for subscription games).

I dont go water-skiing. That hobby is out of my price range. But playing online games is something a lower income person could always have done in the past. In the past you had to come up with $1000 every 4-5 years for a decent PC... $50 for a game and $15 a month. BAM! Your in! And the world you join is an equal and fair playing field. Subscription MMOs didnt discriminate against your condition in real life.

Enter F2P MMOs. Now your told to pay *big* amounts or be present solely for the amusement of the payers. Sure you can log in and try the game completely free, but you will need to pay to play the end game. And not a paltry $15 a month either. Most of the F2P MMOs I've played I figured out that about $50 to $100 a month + some work would put me at a competitive end game level.

Of course as an MMO developer you enjoy moving the price point from $15 a month to $100 a month. Of course they are going to have nothing but positive things to say about the system. They get rich off this system.

And they get to use statistics to make it sound as if its good for the industry, after all "90% of players dont pay dime" right? Forgot the fact we count them as players once they demo our game. If I got to define who is a player (Someone in the end game) what percentage of them are paying, and HOW MUCH?? Statistics can show whatever you want them to. You know what? The more firefighters show up on the scene of a fire, the more damage that fire ends up causing. I guess that means we should cut the budget of firefighters, so less show up, right? See what I did there? I used a statistic that is totally true to paint a completely different picture than what is really going on. The reason more firefighters showed up was perhaps it was a bigger fire, and THAT was the real reason for all the damages. Well its the same situation with the F2P games, they can cite the statistics of who doesn't pay, but its irrelevant. What matters is the players who are actually consuming the content (read PLAYING the game, not demoing it). How much do they have to shell out, and is that were you want the industry to go?

Raph Koster talks about free-to-play models and whales {Massively}

Jan 11th 2012 8:43PM Why are the same opinions rehashed by different columnists over and over and over and over and over? Where is the other side to the story? I'm not even a trained journalist and I would have lots of cutting questions for "Raph Koster" about his information, where he got it and what his definitions of certain things are.

I'll take apart just his first comment:

"The typical F2P player does indeed play for 100% free. It is not a nickel-and-dime model, as some commenters think. The vast majority of players in an F2P model never pay anything at all."

Can you cite your source for this, Raph? Who do you consider "typical"? Can you define "play"? Is it considered "playing" if the game has embedded, non-consentual PVP and the "player" without money is there strictly for the amusement of the player with money? Looking at leveling and progression, what level of progression constitutes "playing" a game? What if progression costs more than the industry standard, are we still considered "players"? How about competitive play? Can anyone play competitively without paying more than what a subscription would have cost? If they can not play competitively on $15 a month or less, do they still fall into the catergory of "players", Raph?

Thats just picking apart his first declaration. I wish these game sites would have someone cover the OTHER side of the debate sometime..... The side that leads to the conclusion that F2P is driving the poor and middle class right out of a hobby they used to enjoy....

The Soapbox: Bigpoint's cash-shop policies and why they are OK {Massively}

Jan 3rd 2012 7:57PM Would you play F2P chess where someone could pay to replace his "unwanted" pawns with extra queens? Only if you were the guy with the most queens, I suppose.

The Daily Grind: Want to make an inaccurate prediction? {Massively}

Jan 1st 2012 12:43PM Gamers will rise up and refuse to pay more than $15 a month for their games, putting all those F2P scams out of business forever.

Massively's Best of 2011 Awards {Massively}

Dec 31st 2011 5:40PM @SwarlesBarkley

If the credit for the corporate stooge award goes from the time F2P goes live, then I guess Lotro wins 2011, but Cryptic (with STO) is totally taking that award in 2012.

Massively's Best of 2011 Awards {Massively}

Dec 31st 2011 5:37PM Oh look another site to report the new "big hype" mmo is the greatest thing ever... *yawn*

I cant wait until all the sites get their hands on Diablo3 and report that as the new greatest thing ever.... *rolls eyes*

Star Trek Online holds 'last chance sale' before F2P kicks in {Massively}

Dec 30th 2011 11:56AM @Yukon Sam

Sure they will, you just saw the article on the guy that spent $16,000 on a sword right? People on the internet are willing to spend anything to win, especially games with PVP.

Star Trek Online holds 'last chance sale' before F2P kicks in {Massively}

Dec 30th 2011 11:54AM The prices were already "adjusted" for F2P. And by "adjusted" I mean "most things went UP".

They promised ships would remain account unlocks and they've already raised Cstore prices after announcing F2P. We'll see how long those promises last. Of course our gaming "press" doesnt mention any of this.